Some members of the Supreme Court, as well as some legal commentators, argue that between the two extremes of equal protective review is an intermediate level, or “rational basis with bite,” as Professor Gunther called it. It is necessary to analyze this review at an intermediate level, since the applicants in this case appear to rely heavily on cases in which the Supreme Court has reviewed statutes, regulations and other regulations with a degree of review that is arguably inconsistent with the traditional respectful equality of protection review. A careful examination of cases that have relied on arguably higher standards of review in cases of equal protection, which do not involve fundamental interests or previously identified suspect classifications, shows that these cases are mainly divided into two directions: (1) classification systems that use illegitimacy as the basis for discrimination between one group and another; and (2) gender discrimination. Wagenaar said Michigan`s higher drinking age reduced major property damage and injury accidents among drivers ages 18 to 20 by 17 percent. With the adoption of the constitutional amendment to raise the minimum drinking age, voters sided with the protection of life and physical integrity in the exercise of their remaining legislative power. In Dr. Douglass` report (DX G, S. 107) states: Recent Supreme Court decisions, while not directly addressing the issue, support the above reasoning. For example, in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 91 pp.

Ct. 260, 27 L. Ed. 2d 272 (1970), five judges who otherwise could not agree on other aspects of the Court`s jurisprudence agreed on whether it was within the prerogative of States to change the legal voting age. Justice Black, for example, stated, “The determination of the age requirement for electors is a matter of legislative judgment that cannot be properly decided under the equality clause.” Id. at 127 n. 10, 91 p. ct. at 266.

Justice Douglas` opinion is particularly revealing in this regard. He noted that the repeal of prohibition by the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933, allowed each state to establish its own laws on alcohol consumption. At the time, most states set the legal drinking age (MLDA) at 21. Now that the issues of the protection of equality and the age of majority have been eliminated, the other alleged violations of the Constitution must now be addressed. Before examining these alleged constitutional interferences individually, a general remark is in order. The Court considers that all the other arguments put forward are generally insignificant and have limited legal significance. In the Court`s view, the fact that these ancillary issues arise in the present case as an attempt by the applicants to raise questions of “fundamental rights”, since it is clear from any review of the applicable law that the right to consume alcoholic beverages is not in itself a fundamental right. The legislator`s measure entered into force on the 15th. It was replaced seven days later by a referendum that raised the age to 21.

Proponents of the 21-year-old limit pointed out something most people may remember from their own days of underage drinking: Alcho`s availability1)01 seeps into age groups, with legal drinkers buying for their underage friends. * For established religious purposes;* If a person under twenty-one years of age is accompanied by a parent, spouse or guardian twenty-one years of age or older;* For medical purposes, if purchased as an over-the-counter drug or prescribed or administered by a physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, a hospital or an authorized medical facility;* In a private dwelling, which includes a residential dwelling and up to twenty contiguous hectares on which the dwelling belonging to the same person who owns it is situated;* the sale, handling, transport or service of supplying alcoholic beverages on the basis of the lawful ownership of an establishment or the lawful employment of a person under twenty-one years of age by a duly licensed producer, wholesaler or retailer of alcoholic beverages. “When drinking age is 18, beer comes to 15-year-olds,” said Anne Robinson, a suburban Detroit teacher who voted for the 21-year-old limit. “It`s the same by group. Twenty-one-year-olds will still buy for their 18-year-old friends, but it won`t go much further. States are considering raising the minimum drinking age, while efforts to lower it from 21 to 19 in California were rejected in the state Senate in 1977. The Michigan State Medical Society Board of Directors supported raising the legal drinking age to 21. “We have seen too many cases where young lives have been shortened or abandoned to suffer the permanent debilitating effects that all too often occur when young drinkers get behind the wheel of a car,” said Dr. Louis Zako, a member of the organization.

*1382 Part of the study consisted of a controlled analysis of multiple time series for a 20% random sample of accidents in Michigan. For the purposes of these conclusions, the results of this test provide sufficient evidence of the effect on 18-20 year olds of changing the minimum drinking age in Michigan. With respect to remaining deviations from predicted frequencies, the national increase from 1972 to 1975 in remaining or statistically unexpected alcohol-related accidents among 18- to 20-year-olds was 16.61% for the rate of three SPOs and 34.61% for the HBD rate. As Dr. Douglass said, this reflects an exceptionally conservative analysis of the rate of three MSDSs which, when translated, indicates approximately 4,800 alcohol-related accidents in the affected group during the first 48 months of the lower drinking age. This represents the estimated minimal impact of lowering the drinking age on 18-20 year olds in terms of alcohol-related accidents. The HBD rate, on the other hand, represents what has been determined to be the maximum impact. In addition, no other age group had a measurable “residual influence” with the rate of alcohol consumption at three SPOs. Equally important is the fact that, in the Craig case, as in so many other cases, the statistics used were created primarily for other purposes and then adapted for use in litigation.

However, the statistics that Dr. Douglass relies on are statistics from studies commissioned specifically to examine the immediate and long-term effects of lowering Michigan`s drinking age on highway road safety.